| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 261 of 17.7.2019 Decided on: 5.12.2022 Lakhwinder Singh aged 35 years, son of Sh.Maghar Singh,r/o Vill.Balbera Tehsil & Distt. Patiala.(Aadhaar card No.5798 0375 5354) …………...Complainant Versus - Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its Secretary.
- Sub Divisional Officer Sub Division, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Patiala, Balbera,Distric t Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties 3) Soil Conservator Officer Zila Parisad,Sirhind Road, Patiala. ………Proforma Opposite party Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act QUORUM Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member ARGUED BY Sh.Pargat Singh, Authorized representative for the complainant. Sh.H.S.Dhaliwal, counsel for Opposite parties No.1&2. ORDER S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT - The instant complaint is filed by Lakhwinder Singh S/o Maghar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Patiala and others (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
- It is averred that the complainant is having 10HP tubewell – motor connection bearing No.AP10/1620, installed in the year 2008 as a general tubewell connection in his agricultural land situated at village Balbera, District Patiala. It is further averred that Proforma OP No.3 instructed the complainant that, if, he wants to take the connection on priority basis then he will have to install Micro Irrigation Drip System with ISI make articles and have to grow vegetables with Drip Micro Scheme, for a minimum period of three years and thereafter he can use the said connection for the cultivation of paddy and wheat crops. As such, the complainant got installed the Micro Irrigation System from M/s Jain Irrigation System Limited Jalgav, Maharashtra. It is further averred that after installation of the said Micro Irrigation system, the concerned authority issued certificate No.2573 dated 27.10.2008.The project was checked by the OPs and the system was being running absolutely correct and directed that the tubewell connection be issued on priority basis. Thereafter the OPs issued Motor connection of 10 HP to the complainant with the conditions that (i) the complainant will not either sell or denote or lend the system to anybody for three years (ii) the complainant will allow any officer/official to inspect the system installed in field anytime during three years (iii) the complainant will cultivate for three years after having proper spacing on farm for minimum three years after installation of drip irrigation micro system. It is further averred that in this regard the OPs obtained declaration from the complainant and issued the tubewell connection in March 2010.
- It is further averred that after a period of more than three years, the OPs issued letter bearing memo No.650 dated 9.5.2013 with the remarks that the said connection was issued for the purpose of growing vegetables and gardening, so the connection be used for this purpose. On receipt of the said letter, the complainant submitted his reply dated 29.6.2013 submitting therein that he had cultivated the vegetables as per the instructions of the OPs/concerned authority for fixed period of three years and now he has started to grow paddy and wheat crops in his fields and also prayed for the withdrawal of the aforesaid letter. It is further averred that thereafter the OPs withdrew the said notice and cancelled the same and till then the complainant is using the said motor connection for irrigation of wheat, paddy and other crops.
- It is further averred that in the month of July,2019, the complainant submitted an application alongwith affidavit for the increasing load of the said connection from 10HP to 12 ½ HP but the OP No.2 not only refused to accede to the genuine request of the complainant rather threatened him to disconnect the tubewell motor connection. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Consequently, prayer for acceptance of the complaint has thus been made.
- Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement. Preliminary objections have been taken that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Court with clean hands and has concealed the material information and that at the time of releasing the connection, the complainant himself submitted an affidavit duly attested by the Executive Magistrate that he will not use the connection in question for any other purpose.
- On merits, it is denied that the complainant is consumer of the OPs. It is admitted that the complainant is having Tubewell –motor connection of 10HP installed in the year 2008. It is denied that after three years, the complainant can use the said connection for cultivation of paddy and wheat crops. It is averred that it is a matter between the complainant and OP No.3. It is submitted that OP No.3 was giving subsidy for the installation of Micro drip system and it might be their condition to grow vegetables for three years but there is nowhere mentioned by OP No.3 that complainant can use the connection for cultivation of paddy and wheat crops after three years. It is averred that as per rules and regulation of the OPs, the connection should be used for the purpose for which the same was issued. It is submitted that as per Circulation No.59/2006 there is condition for issuing the Drip/Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System that the consumer shall submit an affidavit duly attested by the Executive Magistrate that in case he is found using the tubewell connection for any other purpose, his connection shall be disconnected without any notice. It is further averred that the complainant submitted an affidavit dated 19.11.2018 that he will not use the connection for any other purpose. It is further averred that declaration was obtained by OP No.3 from the complainant and not by the OPs No.1&2 and nowhere in the said declaration it is mentioned that the complainant can use the connection for cultivating of paddy and wheat crops after three years.
- It is further averred that connection of the complainant was checked on 21.8.2019 and it was found that there is no drip system installed in the fields of the complainant and the complainant was using the connection for irrigating the paddy crops and as per circular No.59/2006, the connection of the complainant is liable to be disconnected. It is admitted that the complainant approached OP No.2 for increase of load from 10 HP to 12 ½ HP. After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of tendering the document, the complainant withdrew the complaint against OP No.3.
- In order to prove his case, the complainant furnished his affidavit, Ex.CA alongwith document Ex.C1 copy of receipt, Ex.C2 copy of certificate, Ex.C3 copy of declaration, Ex.C4 copy of letter to the complainant dated 9.5.2013, Ex.C5 copy of reply dated 29.6.2013 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs No.1&2 furnished the affidavit Ex.OPA of Pankaj Bansal, SDO, PSPCL alongwith documents, Ex.OP1 copy of circular No.59/2006, Ex.OP2 copy of affidavit of complainant dated 19.11.2008, Ex.OP3 copy of checking report dated 21.8.2019 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the arguments of authorized representative of the complainant, Ld. cunsel for OP No.1&2 and have also gone through the record available on the file, carefully.
- The complainant has submitted that he has applied for tubewell connection of 10 horse power in the year 2008 and the said connection was released on priority basis .The said connection was released after the necessary certificate for installation of Micro Irrigation Drip System was given by the office of District Soil Conservation Officer, Patiala,Ex.C2 and an undertaking Ex.C3 for the issuance of said certificate was given by the complainant to the District Soil Conservation Officer and in no way relates to OP No.2.The certificate regarding installation of Micro Irrigation Drip System was issued by the office of DSCO (Ex.C3) on the basis of which the motor connection under Micro Irrigation Drip System was released. OP No.2 in its sworn affidavit, Ex.OPA has submitted that undertaking was given by the complainant to OP No.3 for installation of Micro Irrigation Drip System is merely meant for Soil Conservation Officer and only for the release of subsidy to the complainant and does not govern the terms and conditions for the release/option of the electricity connection for drip irrigation system to the complainant, which is regulated by the terms and conditions contained in Commercial Circular No.59/2006,Ex.OP3.The said circular contains detailed guidelines for the release of Micro tubewell connections under Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System and explains that there is rapid degradation of underground water table and in order to conserve the water, scheme has been introduced for the release of Drip Sprinkler irrigation system for cultivation of food crops and vegetables with the condition that the prospective consumer will submit an affidavit duly attested by First Class Magistrate stating that in case he is found using the irrigation connection for any other purpose for which the connection has not been issued, his tubewell connection shall be disconnected without any notice.
- Admittedly the complainant had submitted the similar affidavit,Ex.OP2 to OPs No.1&2 at the time of release of Drip/Micro Sprinkler Irrigation system deposing therein that he will use the said connection as per rules and if, he is found to be using the said connection for any other purpose, his connection may be disconnected without any notice.
- The complainant has relied upon the undertaking given to the DSCO (Ex. C3) to keep the system operational for a minimum period of three years for getting a certificate( Ex.C2) regarding the installation and operation of Drip Sprinkler Irrigation System. This undertaking was merely meant for the DSCO for issuing of certificate (Ex.C2) regarding functionality of the Drip Sprinkler Irrigation System which was a pre requisite condition for release of the connection for Drip Sprinkler Irrigation System by OPs No.1&2.being the service provider alongwith other conditions, and does not mean that the consumer can shift to move any other system for sowing paddy after a period of three years. Drip Sprinkler Irrigation System for which connection was to be released on priority was meant to be kept operational all the time, for which affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate First Class (Ex. OP2 ) was asked and given by the complainant stating therein that:
“Aforesaid connection shall be used as per rules and the connection will not use for any other purpose and, if, so my connection be disconnected without any notice” - The complainant in its complaint has himself admitted that he has been using the connection released for growing vegetables under Drip Irrigation System, for growing paddy and wheat crops and as such has himself agreed that he has violated the terms and conditions of circular No.59/2006. Furthermore, opposite party no.2 during the checking of the connection carried out on 21.8.2019,Ex.OP3 has found that the Drip Sprinkler Irrigation System was not at all in operational and in fact was not installed which was pre condition for the release of the connection on priority and was using the said connection for growing of paddy.
- As such, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not complied with rules and regulation and has violated the terms and conditions for the release of Micro Sprinkler Irrigation System. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
PRONOUNCED DATED:5.12.2022 G.S.Nagi S.K.AGGARWAL Member President | |
